eHarmony and the tolerance mau-mau-ers
My syndicated column today expands on yesterday’s eHarmony post (link). As I note, eHarmony will be forking over $5,000 to the gay plaintiff and $50,000 to New Jersey’s Civil Rights office. Here’s the entire settlement the company agreed to, via onlinedatingmagazine. There’s more on the class-action lawsuit against eHarmony proceeding in California here. And Jacob Sullum weighs in.
***
The eHarmony shakedown
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2008
Congratulations, tolerance mau-mauers: Your shakedown of a Christian-targeted dating website worked. Homosexuals will no longer be denied the inalienable “right” to hook up with same-sex partners on eHarmony. What a landmark triumph for social progress, eh? New Jersey plaintiff Eric McKinley can now crown himself the new Rosa Parks — heroically breaking down inhumane barriers to Internet matchmaking by forcing a law-abiding private company to provide services it was never created to provide.”Men seeking men” has now been enshrined with “I have a dream” as a civil rights rallying cry of the 21st century. Bully for you, Mr. McKinley. You bully.
eHarmony founder Neil Warren is the gentle, grandfatherly businessman who launched his popular dating site to support heterosexual marriage. A Focus on the Family author with a divinity degree, Warren encourages lasting, healthy unions between men and women of all faiths, mixed faiths, or no faith at all. Don’t like what eHarmony sells? Go somewhere else. There are thousands upon thousands of dating sites on the Web that cater to gays, lesbians, Jews, Muslims, Trekkies, runners, you name it. No matter. In the name of tolerance, McKinley refused to tolerate eHarmony’s right to operate a lawful business that didn’t give him what he wanted. He filed a discrimination complaint against eHarmony with the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights in 2005.
To be clear: eHarmony never, ever refused to do business with anyone. The company broke no laws. Their great “sin” was not providing a politically correct service that a publicity-seeking gay plaintiff demanded they provide. For three years, the company battled McKinley’s legal shakedown artists — and staved off other opportunists as well. eHarmony had been previously sued by a lesbian looking to force the company to match her up with another woman and by a married man who ridiculously sought to force the company to find him prospects for an adulterous relationship.
This case is akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a ribeye or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services. But rather than defend the persecuted business, the New Jersey Attorney General intervened on behalf of the gay plaintiff and wrangled an agreement out of eHarmony to change its entire business model. The company agreed not only to offer same-sex dating services on a new site, but also to offer six-month subscriptions for free to 10,000 gay users, pay McKinley $5,000, and fork over $50,000 to New Jersey’s Civil Rights division “to cover investigation-related administrative costs.” Oh, and that’s not all. Yield, yield to the grievance-mongers:
Additional terms of the settlement include:
* eHarmony, Inc. will post photos of same-sex couples in the “Diversity” section of its Web site as successful relationships are created using the company’s same-sex matching service. In addition, eHarmony, Inc. will include photos of same-sex couples, as well as individual same-sex users, in advertising materials used to promote its same-sex matching services;
* eHarmony, Inc. will revise anti-discrimination statements placed on company Web sites, in company handbooks and other company publications to make plain that it does not discriminate on the basis of “sexual orientation;”
* the company has committed to advertising and public relations/ marketing dedicated to its same-sex matching service, and will retain a media consultant experienced in promoting the “fair, accurate and inclusive” representation of gay and lesbian people in the media to determine the most effective way of reaching the gay and lesbian communities.
I have enormous sympathy for eHarmony, whose attorney explained that they gave in to the unfair settlement because “litigation outcomes can be unpredictable.” The recent mob response to the passage of Proposition 8, the traditional marriage measure in California, must have also weighed on the eHarmony management’s minds. But capitulation will only yield a worse, entirely predictable outcome: More shakedowns of private businesses who hold views deemed unacceptable by the Equality-At-All-Costs Brigade. Perhaps heterosexual men and women should start filing lawsuits against gay dating websites and undermine their businesses. Coerced tolerance and diversity-by-fiat cut both ways.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Document drop: Lib 9th circuit panel rules Proposition 8 unconstitutional
February 7, 2012 01:09 PM by Michelle Malkin
152 CommentsStop the hate campaign against law-abiding American businesses
February 2, 2011 04:03 AM by Michelle Malkin
244 CommentsCalif. judge overturns voter-approved Prop. 8 gay marriage ban
August 4, 2010 04:51 PM by Michelle Malkin
955 Comments
Dear Cindy & Meghan: Let’s talk about who’s really being silenced over Prop. 8
January 25, 2010 11:36 AM by Michelle Malkin
126 Comments
Supreme Court blocks Prop. 8 show trial plan
January 11, 2010 11:31 AM by Michelle Malkin
34 Comments
Climate of hate: More threats from the gay marriage mob
November 10, 2009 05:24 PM by Michelle Malkin
49 Comments
Left-wing thug of the day
November 5, 2009 01:18 PM by Michelle Malkin
78 CommentsMaine votes down gay marriage
November 4, 2009 01:25 AM by Michelle Malkin
759 Comments
Categories: Proposition 8
Pundit & Pundette
» Obama's war on conscience, cont'dBabalu Blog
» Greece is BurningBetsys Page
» Cruising the WebPatterico
» NYT hails the safety net: Poor hardest hitDaily Caller
» Inside Media Matters: Sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizationsAmSpecBlog
» Weekend Political Wrap-UpJustOneMinute
» I Guess I'm Still Stuck On Stupid
I have ZERO sympathy for eHarmony, whose owners should have stood firm in their stated beliefs, assuming they actually hold them.
Capitualtion kills.
And, no, I don’t hate gay people.
I just made an appointment with a gynecologist to have my yearly prostate exam.
IF I can’t have my own way, I’m going to scream and holler and throw a hissy-fit until you give in! That’ll show you!
:pulls tongue from cheek:
Unfortunately, as we all know, in this “tolerant” society, everything is tolerated except someone trying to make an honest living(e-Harmony and JTP come to mind). Because they don’t “conform”, we just can’t have that. As someone remarked on another thread some time ago, 1984 is coming in 2008, and Animal Farm can’t be too far behind.
It’s the camel’s nose under the tent. The next bunch of whiners will insist that they start posting pics and listings for sheep.
Whom do I see about sueing Al Qaeda and Hamas for not admitting Christians?
How does that saying go?
“The squeaky wheel gets greased up.”
When the new website fails, will there be a refund from NJ?
I’m thinking it is akin to left wing talk radio. No one will use it then it will fail.
/sarc on
Maybe they can find a kids club to raid to keep it going.
/sarc off
Michelle, I’m curious about something. Why does using f** or f****t on Hot Air get you banned but not here?
Yep.
A lesson learned many times…and unlearned every time.
They should have pulled an “Atlas Shrugs”, and just shut down.
Period.
Then, open a site that is an informal, free introduction service, that accepts donations/contributions.
And, if that were to be challenged, it would clearly indicate that it was another example of how the letter of the law can be so inadequate for the expression of the spirit and intention of the law – an inadequacy that is exploited to the hilt by attorneys, shakedown artists, attorneys, counterculturalists, attorneys, litigious pains in the @$$ that have too much free time, attorneys, clueless judges, attorneys, Muslim jihadis, attorneys, sophists, attorneys, spinmeisters, attorneys, ….
Did I mention attorneys?
This inadequacy is exemplified at this blog by the “word-games” continually played by our trolls, with their confusion, diversion, sophistry, false equivalences, straw men, thread-jacking, obfuscation, etc.
I’m still predicting the Miss America pageant will pre-emptively welcome male cross-dressers to its stage.
You tell ‘em, Bert. Open the door and let ‘em in…
There he is, Miss America…
I think I’ll file a complaint with the Air Force IG because we can’t have an M1 Abrams to defend our base. We also want an aircraft carrier in the nearest river for the same thing
Will this thread surpass the last?
/me goes to get popcorn
To crudely paraphrase Dexter, in this instance the squeaky colon gets the lube.
We are headed down a difficult path in America. Whining and winning are becoming synonymous. I will not retreat in mindset, but I am prepared to live a simple life in the mountains. Scale back everything, not be beholden to the government anymore.
I’m almost to the point where I say, “I’m out!”.
Seems everyday something is happening that makes me sad for my country. The original idea of America is no longer.
eharmony needs to shut down now before they are driven into bankruptcy. They then need to put on thier website that they were shut down by the intolerance of gays.
Hey, it worked for Jesse Jackson and his “Rainbow Coalition,” didn’t it? It worked for ACORN against mortgage lenders, too. That homosexuals are borrowing a page from a proven playbook is no surprise at all; one wonders why it’s taken them this long.
A central problem with the homosexual definition of “tolerance” is that they confuse it with “approval” if not “celebration.” And they become quite intolerant themselves if they don’t feel that they’re getting the “tolerance” from society they feel they deserve.
The other problem is more disturbing, and that is the creeping suspicion that the transparent hostility underlying the drive for homosexual “marriage” doesn’t arise from a burning desire for equality, but rather a yearning to undermine and eventually destroy traditional social institutions through mockery.
When a homosexual “marriage” can lead to children not produced in a test tube, then I’ll consider the prospect of its equality to the real thing.
And when homosexual dating sites are compelled to allow heterosexual members, I’ll begin to feel a twinge of sympathy for their desire for “inclusion.”
You may have no sympathy, but standing firm isn’t exactly the best tactic for a profit oriented businesses. eHarmony doesn’t live and breathe to fight the war to protect non-adulterous heterosexual dating. If they lose, they go away completely, and how do their employees eat, and how do they continue to provide their services to their original customers?
Activist Government is wholly at fault here.
Organizations like the Boy Scouts have spent loads and loads of dollars and have cashed in every political chit they have fighting attacks like this, and they are weaker from it. The sad thing is that fight isn’t over
Exactly.
Bingo!
OK. This, plus the class-action suit now pending in California, convinces me that the gay-marriage debate is worthy of all the concern its gotten.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts had a right to discriminate under the freedom of association granted by the US Constitution. eHarmony would undoubtedly have won under the same principles. Now, with their capitulation, they have given the first inch of the next thousand miles that will be demanded of private companies and of churches, I have no doubt.
Very, very bad precedent here.
Is their lawyer, Theodore Olsen, the same one who was the US Solicitor General?
You don’t wholeheartedly, enthusastically, and passionately endorse everything and anything they want, so you must hate them.
That’s how it works, or at least it does according to the lefties here.
Tolerance is not enough. YOU. MUST. APPROVE.
Regulus
agreed. It is my belief, though, there must be an overt, public and long enduring rail against this encroachment of our valued culture. The tactics used by those of the immoral left are exactly what the Islamic zealots value, encroachment through years of steady drumming into the weak minded heads of do and feel good types.
How freaking disgusting. E Harmony should just close up shop. They didn’t settle, they BENT OVER.
which class-action suit are you referring to, vickisoup?
This suit, redpeach.
The next round of lawsuits will be from gays claiming they got AIDS from someone they met on eHarmony.
So basicly E-Harmony paid $55,000 so that someone can mount McKinley.
I can’t believe that eHarmony agreed to inject all of this money into this government-mandated component of their business.
The have to post photos of gay couples, spend money on marketing marketing, hire gay media consultants.
This is just unreal. But, it’s New Jersey.
They should have stuck to their guns. This will embolden others to come to the trough. And that’s started already with California’s Class Action against eHarmony.
EHarmony should be concerned that they are going to be driven out of business.
McKinley had no intention of using eHarmony. This was theater.
That’s my fear. The Boy Scouts is near and dear to me (I’m an Eagle) and it really chaps me that an organization that only does good for the youth of our nation, particularly the inner cities, is beset by Libtards that want to force their agenda on them.
My own son’s troop had to find a new meeting place and charter organization when they were forced out of the building they’ve had on Air Force property for 40+ years.
THen there’s the Libs running the city of ‘Brotherly Love’ that somehow don’t seem to understand the meaning of the term “in perpetuity”.
Aargh!!!
I have no sympathy for EHarmony caving in to this case – Shame on them for compromising and I think Michelle you should be hard on them for giving in. And I hope Christians who have been using e-harmony will stop because of their compromise
At the risk of sounding “insensitive”, I believe you are correct.
How would a Christian’s using EHarmony, now that they’ve agreed to hook up gays, be any less hypocritical than a Christian’s gladly donating money in order to pay for abortions for convenience?
Uh, MM, we prefer “Trekers”
seriously though, this truly makes me sick. Great column.e-harmony needs to stop now after this ridiculously cowardly cave-in.
I think that it really is too bad for eHarmony. As others have stated, they are a for profit company and an extended legal battle doesn’t make sense, profit wise. What I can’t help but think is, why didn’t this person just go use another site to find his partners? I am sure there are many sites online for homosexuals to frequent. Why not just take your business elsewhere?
Indeed.
eHarmony thought that settling was the least costly and least risky choice. They were wrong. Appeasement of fascists NEVER works, it only encourages them. As Michelle previously noted, the day after eHarmony settled in New Jersey, the gay fascists (Al-Gayda) attacked again in California:
It is time for eHarmony to reverse their decision to settle in NJ,
and for all social conservatives to rally around eHarmony as they fight these legal battles.
Al-Gayda has no interest in using eHarmony to find a partner.
Al-Gayda is only doing this to attack Christian values.
It’s time for Christians to stand their ground:
Who is defending businesses?
Take Stephen Baldwin with you. He promised to leave if Obama won but has instead been hanging around, making everyone uncomfortable, like a lingering party guest that doesn’t know when it’s time to leave.
And to borrow a phrase from this very blog: Wah. You don’t like eHarmony’s new, inclusive policies? Don’t visit the site. Hell, even take a page from the gay rights movement playbook and boycott it. Or go out and support a Christian or a conservative dating website (they exist — and I guarantee they’re 100% gay-free). Problem solved.
Very important point. Can we as a country move any further to the left? It doesn’t seem possible to me. It would involve hate speech laws, comparable worth in wages for comparable jobs, gays serving openly in the military, universal health care, tax rates of 75% for the highest income earners, more control of everything by the federal government, expanded benefits for the poor … is that really where we’re going? It is, isn’t it?
I think if I were Dr. Warren I’d have closed the d*mn thing down and taken a TV ad to say why; then retired to my ranch or whatever he has and put that phase of stupidity behind me.
See, the problem here is liberals think Christians who don’t approve of homosexuality or abortion aren’t “real Christians” and hypocrites.
‘Cause, you know, my copy of the Bible is rife with passages approving sin and I’m just ignorant for ignoring them. And, of course, many liberals who haven’t set foot in an orthodox Christian church in years – if at all – know much better what Catholicism, or conservative Protestantism *really* teach.
Why would anyone start a business in the country?
But now we have all seen the truth. Equality is just a ruse, and we have all fallen for it. Why? Because of our better natures. We feel sorry for the weaker, the minority, the stupid. We don’t want to see them “feel bad” or suffer for their evolutionary shortcomings. What has all of this “I have a dream” silliness brought us? Tyranny. They, the 5% homosexual, the 12% black, the 3% this or that, they now rule over you. They have special civil rights and now, you have lost the most basic ones. Freedom of Speech, right of association, and now your right to practice your faith in any meaningful way outside of the quiet of your own mind has just been taken away.
Question, Members of the Majority. Will you simply sit back and lament? Or will you actively engineer a backlash to protect your rights while you still have them? If they can take your liberty, they can take your life. Civil War is here, only they are fighting.
so why didn’t the gays do that??? oh no, they have to sue…just like they will sue to shut down churches that don’t marry them…good little tolerant
nazis that they are…
There is no need to bring religion into this discussion to support e-Harmony and I think it actually weakens the argument. At issue is private enterprise providing or denying services it wants to or not provide. Can a Christian dating site legally deny services to an agnostic or atheist? Can a solely white, black, hispanic dating site even exist? Can Pizza Hut serve only pizza? Can Dairy Queen not carry any fat free or sugar free frozen desserts?
I think the broader issue is that discrimination continues to be more and more broadly defined. If you don’t like a white guy because he is a jerk that is fine. If you don’t like a black guy because he is a jerk you are an intolerant racist discriminating against him. This goes along with the horrors of “think crimes” that someone beating or killing someone of a certain color, faith or sexual orientation is worse than beating or killing someone of a different color, faith or sexual orientation. It is the continuation of not moral relativism but of a move to an amoral society. Society has developed for thousands of years in a direction that perpetuates the human species and allows it to prosper. To throw out the successes of the most prosperous species on the planet to cow-tow to the whims of about 5% of the population seems suicidal to me.
See the fall of Rome for reference.
*disclaimer: I sort of do have a dog in this fight as I met my bride of 2 weeks on e-Harmony*
You know, if I were an tolerant, live-and-let-live gay person in America, I’d be upset by all this — and I’d be be worried about what it means for services I wish to contract for in the future. Business owners have been put on notice that there is now a gay mafia that will bankrupt your business via lawsuits if you don’t comply with their wishes. Well, lawsuit fears may push them to accept business they would rather not, but they aren’t necessarily going to feel the need to give the customer their best efforts.
Someone, let’s use a photographer as an example, may feel threatened enough by fear of lawsuits to take pictures at your commitment ceremony, but will that person have YOUR best interests at heart? Will he/she put forth the best effort — or just enough to avoid a lawsuit?
Just like his brother Alec, and dozens of other Hollywood folk who left after 2004, right?
Whoa…wait a second. You have the gall to say that if *we* don’t like the new policies of eHarmony – we should go elsewhere.
But then defend the fact that gays – who have myriad options for dating sites – coerced eHarmony to cater to them? Why couldn’t the gays go to other dating sites if they didn’t like eHarmony’s policies?
As for the other Christian sites – they’re next. They’re just not as high profile as eHarmony.
Frickin’ hypocrite…
I’m not out as in leaving America. I didn’t leave America, America left me. I’m out in the sense that I don’t care to work harder and harder to give more and more to a government that belittles the core principles that made this country great.
I don’t want to be complicit in all of this.
not for long, given your gay nazi friends and their friends, the jack-booted black-robed thug judges
Indeed. Go John Galt, make enough for yourself and screw the liberals. Let Hollywood pick up the slack…
Come on, nyk have you learned nothing from Ted Haggard, Mark Foley, Larry Craig…
Those sites are 100% openly gay-free.
eHarmony bent over and invited the shafting.
The excuse that “litigation outcomes can be unpredictable,” is thin, at best. Every fight’s outcome is unpredictable. Apparently, eHarmony is happy with their settlement and for that reason, I don’t understand anyone spilling tears over the result.
If they’re willing to compromise their morals in order to keep the money flowing… don’t act like its supposed to be a concern of mine.
I notice his brother Alec is still here…
We’d like to keep the talented ones.
Can you imagine, literally “minding your own business”, and you have to fork over $55,000? For what? It’s Kafkaesque, if not Hitleresque.
I hear NAMBLA is preparing their legal papers, now that the precedent has been set.
Soon to be followed by ”Men seeking penguins” to be enshrined with “I have a dream” as a civil rights rallying cry of the 21st century.
Why would anyone really want to start any business in the United States anymore? Between high taxes, excessive government regulations, and now looney judicial mandates (i.e. lawsuit threats or settlements) you’d almost have to be crazy to operate a business. I imagine in the future the only way around this is to become a government employee or a blog author. And being a blog author will probably experience government sensitivity and fair-speech mandates in the near future. This country is going to be hosed beond belief if things continue along present trajectories.
the ACLU will do it for free for them! like the good liberals they are!
Actually, not just like his brother Alec because he never said that, but you can bone up on who actually did here, for future reference.
Um…well, Daniel’s still here, so…
You’re right. I guess I should’ve said: They won. GET OVER IT.
Will they post photos like the ones on
“Up your Ally 08″ (Big Time Content WARNING!!!)
I mean it’s all about having an honest profile right?
Or will it be shown through Rose Colored glasses?
there are fagots and there are homosexuals, just as there are whites and white trash, McKinley is a fagot…whiny, spineless, fagot. what’s N.J., A.G.’s name, didn’t see their name anywhere. Another government POS, IMO.
As others have said on this thread, I have no sympathy for eHarmony if they can’t even fight for their rights. Jesse (Hi-Jack) Jackson technic at work.
Oh, right…
I’m a gay dude and am very angry the e-Harmony caved. There are thousands of sites for gays out there already.
Since we all know this idiot had no intention of using E-harmony, can he be forced to continue paying membership fees for the next 5 years or so?
Is E-Harmony going to capitulate on the class action suit in California? Or wait until it is a nation wide class action.
Close it down and re-open under a different format.
So it isn’t about access to services, but a big screw you to a Christian dating site…that’s great…
Um… that’s what eharmony was. That’s what they can’t be anymore because of the intolerance of the “tolerant”.
That’s the whole point here.
Knucklehead.
That’s a tall order. The last thread approaches 800 comments. Collie, what do you say that we give it “the old college try” (and I’m not talking David Brooks ivy league here — let’s make Blutarsky proud).
My collie says:
Good job collie. That comment is SURE to stir-up several hundred responses.
Here’s a quick poll, because people had some illuminating comments the other day. I know these seem like loaded questions, but I am just curious. For the record, I don’t think that eHarmony should have caved, and I don’t think they would have lost at trial — nor should they.
Do you think private businesses should have the right to deny employment to applicants based on race?
Do you think private businesses should have the right to deny employment to applicants based on sexual orientation?
Do you think private businesses should have the right to deny accomodations based on race?
Do you think private businesses should have the right to deny accomodations based on sexual orientation?
Since when do serious actors do network television?
No, that’s not true. There are only people: good people, bad people, smart people, stupid people, gay people, straight people. Trying to justify the use of hateful epithets only weakens your argument.
And if you insist on using that word you should at least learn how to spell it.
RSS no to all but they should have the right to do so if they wish. Freedom means you can run your business any way you want. It also means I don’t have to use your business.
This story reminds me of the shipowners paying ramsome to Somali pirates.
The more you pay, the more they hijack. The more they hijack the more you pay.
No difference.
faggots = small bits of wood used to start a fire.
fags = cigarettes
Look it up
Sort of in response to Paul Revere’s post (#60), I think his position shows that to paint all homosexuals with the broad brush of the radicals is unfair. There are many conservative homosexuals in this nation. To equate all homosexuals with those violently protesting the outcome of Prop 8 or suing e-Harmony, is akin to painting all Catholics with the brush of Father Pfegler, or all protestants with the stench of Reverend Wright or Reverend Fred Phelps.
I personally know homosexuals who are opposed to gay marriage although they support civil unions. I know homosexuals who are active in the Pink Pistols, a pro second amendment, citizen carry organization focusing on the homosexual communities which from what I gather contains many conservative members. I know homosexuals who have pretty much the same values and politics as my conservative friends only differing in the choice of the gender of their mate. I also know straight people who lament the passage of Prop 8, who support the violent protesters of the measure and who likely support this suit against e-Harmony.
Dude, feel free to conflagrate me for saying this, but it just cheapens the debate to use language like this. We have plenty of vulgar leftists on this site who will be more than happy to lower the level of discourse. I don’t think we need to jump in with them.
Exactly the point. There are a few retards who just want to spoil it for everybody else. This isn’t about eHarmony, per se. It’s about throwing a public tantrum and being rewarded for it, like when you were just a toddler, and went to the store with mom. If you threw a fit long enough and loud enough, sooner or later, mom being totally embarassed at your behavior, promises you a new toy if you’ll just be quiet and stop.
The prevailing sentiment of these fools, not only in this case, but in the California “Prop 8″ fiasco, isn’t that I want to use your services, or I want to get married. I just want the RIGHT to use your services, or get married. If I can’t use them, then nobody’s going to. Like the old joke: “If Mama ain’t happy, ain’t NOBODY happy!”
I don’t care what your sexual orientation is – it’s absolutely none of my business, just as my sexual orientation is none of your business, although, in the interests of full disclosure, I will say that I’ve been married to the same woman for over 43 years.
But I take a pretty dim view of some “adult” acting like a two-year-old.
They are doing a damn good job of it.
Oh-oh! If you click on Michelle’s link to the entire settlement, there are Google ads for dating services.
The first one I clicked on for “mature singles only” does not appear to offer services to gays. Whether they will be targeted for a lawsuit probably depends on whether or not they can discern if the owner of the site is a Christian. If so, they better have lawyers at the ready.
I’m going to start suing gay and lesbian businesses if they don’t offer material specifically for straight people. That means, pro-Christian, pro-straight, pro-traditional family values material.
If they refuse, I’ll claim they are violating my civil rights by denying me access to material based on my religious beliefs and lifestyle (i.e., the right way to live).
What was Mr. McKinley’s issue with the tried and true method of gay dating, meeting guys at interstate highway rest stop men’s rooms?
So all the commercials now being shown on television that show a happy couple having met on eHarmony a couple of years ago, where they are now married and happy etc., will be changed to show two guys, hugging, kissing, dancing, making “goo goo eyes” at each other, extoling the wonders of eHarmony and thanking them for bringing them together…all while people’s kids are watching some show?
After all, look what they were forced to agree to i.e. future advertising campaigns.
You know, it is bad enough having to drivr through downtown and see the shirtless guys clawing all over each other, hands down each others pants nd whatnot on the billboards that advertise gay phone services and dating sites…but do we really need this during Primetime on TV as well?
A reminder to the perverted trolls.
Same sex coupling is biologically revolting to NORMAL people. It is revolting out of a biological necessity to reproduce. For you trolls to insist that NORMAL people are bigots because they find your act disgusting, is an attempt to deny NORMAL people their humanism.
“…all while people’s kids are watching some show? ”
RetFireman, you lost your right to control what “norms” your children were exposed to when they crammed “Heather Has Two Mommies” down your throat. The only values you are allowed to teach your children are tolerence and inclusion, neither of which is an actual value. In fact, those things are the absence of values.
Sorry, but again, there is a line that separates tolerance and acceptance/approval.
People tolerate homosexuals. However, forcing people to accept it goes well beyond what is acceptable in this country. That is exactly what all this is meant to do. It is meant to force people to accept whatever activities it is that they are doing. Exactly why is it that their “rights” are to be handled this way, yet the rights of the vast majority of everyone else is thrown aside and completely ignored and violated.
The Rights of the minority is to be protected, not forced upon the majority and made into law.
No, because I can think of no job where race in and of itself is relevant to performance
No, because I can think of no job where orientaion is relevant to performance.
Morally, no. Legally, yes. I think a business should be allowed to serve or not serve anyone for any reason, reaping whatever market consequences their decision brings.
The thing is, this wasn’t about eharmony refusing service to gay people. This was about eharmony offering a specific service that gays happen to have no use for. Michelle’s restaurant analogy is spot on. If I want pizza I don’t go to my local chinese place and threaten to sue if they don’t make it.
Now, if you could show me some evidence that gays and straights were psycholgically/emotionally similar, meaning that eharmony’s formula for matching people would apply to them, then I’d have more sympathy for gays that were refused service. But I really, really doubt that such similarity exists. What they need is an entirely different service, and if there’s enough demand for it the market will provide it.
Precisely right – and at at time when the gay movement was starting to make progress towards greater acceptance into the American mainstream, the in-your-face antics like this lawsuit and the Prop 8 protests are doing gay-rights advocates NO favors in garnering goodwill from the public.
What?!?!? The ONLY two choices are “man” and “woman”?!?!? What about those who are “otherly gendered”?
TRANS-MULTI-QUASI-GENDERISTS!!!11!!!111!!one!!
And what if I’m not seeking a man OR a woman?!?!?!? What if I’m seeking a match with a sleek, silky pony or other farmyard partner?
SPECIEISTS!!!!111!1!!!!111!eleventy-one!!
I’m leaving this bigot factory.
That is a scary,nightmare inducing prospect!!
We don’t have too many lawyers….we have too many unethical lawyers.
This case would be laughable were it not taken seriously. When the culture that formed this great nation continues to decline and becomes a small minority, it will be America in name only.
I don’t go around beating up or killing militant homos. That IS tolerance.
The homosexuals will shut down any organization that doesn’t cater to their fascist tactics. They care less if hundreds or thousands receive help from that organization, i.e. Catholic Adoption Services or the Boy Scouts.
The “blood”, so to speak, is on their hands because of the many lives now that are or will be affected.
And those of the deviant life-style wonder why people are getting sick of them and their intolerance.
FamMan: That is exactly right. What is normal IS the coupling of a man and a woman. The basic purpose of sex is to procreate the species. There are only two animals that partake in sex out of pleasure in the world…humans and dolphins. therefore, by the very definition, to have sexual intercourse where the possibility of not procreating is, in fact, ABNORMAL. This is why men and women have been coming together since the dawn of time…to procreate the species.
The human anatomy as far as sexual organs are concerned, are designed specifically for that purpose. To use them for any other purpose is ABNORMAL. The purpose of the orgasm, biologically speaking, is to make the act worthy of being replicated often in order to PROCREATE THE SPECIES. It is one reason humans are one of a very select few that can mate without needing to be “in season”.
Anything other than this is considered ABNORMAL.
This is elementary school biology kids.
I am not saying anything else is wrong, nor claiming anything other than the basic fact of what is normal and what is abnormal.
Funny – did you tell that to Prop 8 opponents?
RetFireman
Thanks. You said it better than could.
opps!
Thanks. You said it better than I could.
RE: Red State Skeptic #65
Let me premise this by saying I already expect this to be taken entirely out of context to be painted as some kind of racist or bigot, and that any such comments from anyone will be ignored.
To answer your questions, YES to all of the above.
Imagine a film studio doing casting calls for a biopic of MLK. Should this studio be forced to consider an Asian actor and hope that they can shoehorn him into the role with costly makeup and effects that they otherwise would not have had to expense?
Imagine an engineering firm who refuses to hire the most talented applicant on the market based on the fact that he’s openly gay. This applicant then applies to a competitor, is hired, and that company succeeds in securing contracts in bids against the bigoted firm with its inferior engineers.
The point is, there are valid reasons, and there are stupid reasons, and the free market rewards good judgement and punishes poor judgement without any kind of mandated government intervention. This doesn’t apply to government services like police protection because these by definition are not “free” markets, they are what economists refer to as “free riders”.
Modern discrimination laws merely force bigotry to go underground. How do we argue to convince people to abandon bigotry if we don’t know who to talk with because they hide their true feelings? With affirmitive action how is any minority individual capable of doing a self evaluation of their own true worth – something which is important to the health of each and every individual?
This is the same with the failing “hate speech” laws like in Canada. If someone wants to say something hateful, we should let them. It lets everyone else know that they are hateful and need to be debated or shunned. This is the function of society, family, friends, and neighbors… not lawyers and officers.
The remedy for bad free speech is more good free speech, never censorship.
Zing!
Right on…
Look, I could go on and on to defend my next statement but I’m just too tired right now so I’ll be inflammatory with no further justification:
I have a sinking feeling this kind of thing will not be resolved except through war.
I’ve known enough gay people, and read enough, to believe it isn’t really a choice. There seem to be both genetic and environmental factors that at least make one susceptible to it.
If gay people want to hang out in their own bars, don’t flaunt their status as being part of the very small minority, and don’t demand special protection or rights, or flout the will of the people as seen in California after Prop. 8, I have no problem with civil union/power of attorney type rights that would allow two long time gay/lesbian partners to enjoy some of the legal protections offered to straight married people.
Forcing “gay marriage” via the courts and thinking that somehow that will make people respect them for it, is a badly flawed idea.
Hate to be graphic, and I understand if this disappears, but you cannot argue that the orifice used by homosexual men in order to have sexual intercourse was designed for that purpose.
I’m gay, so I have to distance myself from two groups, three actually:
1. the hateful posters here who actually aren’t tolerant (and a question for the genius biologists here – how many times does something have to occur in Nature before it is deemed unexceptional?);
2. the gay guy and his supporters who did this; and
3. eHarmony for capitulating. If I owned or ran eHarmony I’d would have rather closed own the business than cave to such a ridiculous demand.
I do not know why gays want such universal acceptance. I have always presumed that the very illicit aspects of their sexual acts was part of the appeal. Why do it if everyone approves? What then is the draw?
As a young Catholic boy growing up, I knew that petting with a girl was a sin. The first time I got to First Base, the thrill was overwhelming due to its forbidden nature. So why do gays want to ‘water down’ their culture by having it universally applauded?
RED STATE:
First off, why would an employer need to know of a person’s sexual exploits in the privacy of their own bedroom? Heterosexuals normally don’t discuss it when seeking employment. Why do homosexuals feel they have to parade their sexual lives to the public?
Yes, it’s all about sexuality. It’s not called a homoaffection or homolove relationship. It’s call a homsexual relationship.
How much longer will they exist?